summary conviction violation in Pennsylvania

2022The case was “simply an appeal from a summary conviction for the violation of [the] illegal commercial use of property zoned R-2 single family Residential . . . no more, no less.” Id. at 881 .

1998In Commonwealth v. Harchelroad, 154 Pa. Cmwlth. 259, 623 A.2d 878 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 535 Pa. 649 , 633 A.2d 153 (1993), we determined that, although the proceeding filed with the district justice by the code enforcement officer following a notice of violation issued by the township was technically denominated a “criminal complaint,” there was no prejudice to the appellant/property owner because the case was "simply an appeal from a summary conviction for the violation of [the] illegal commercial use of property zoned R-2 single family Residential_no more, no less.” Id.

2019Kraft, supra at 757 ; Barzyk, supra at 216 . -6- J-S09017-19 in her brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).

2019Kraft, supra at 757 ; Barzyk, supra at 216 . -6- J-S09017-19 in her brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).

1993Relying on Heidorn Appeal, 412 Pa. 570 , 195 A.2d 349 (1963), the trial court agreed, stating that “[t]o find against [Harchelroad] would be to work an inequity.” (R.R. at 143a.) The critical issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in relying on the equitable defense of laches to decide an appeal from a summary conviction for violation of a zoning ordinance. 4 Although on the surface Heidom and this case raise similar issues, they are easily distinguished.

1993Relying on Heidorn Appeal, 412 Pa. 570 , 195 A.2d 349 (1963), the trial court agreed, stating that “[t]o find against [Harchelroad] would be to work an inequity.” (R.R. at 143a.) The critical issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in relying on the equitable defense of laches to decide an appeal from a summary conviction for violation of a zoning ordinance. 4 Although on the surface Heidom and this case raise similar issues, they are easily distinguished.

1982The majority also relies on Commonwealth v. Gula, 300 Pa.Super. 445 , 446 A.2d 938 (1982). 2 In that case an appeal was taken from a summary conviction for violation of the Vehicle Code.

1982The majority also relies on Commonwealth v. Gula, 300 Pa.Super. 445 , 446 A.2d 938 (1982). 2 In that case an appeal was taken from a summary conviction for violation of the Vehicle Code.

1968In Commonwealth v. DeBaldo, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 363 , 82 A. 2d 578 (1951), defendants were held to be barred from attacking the validity of a zoning ordinance on appeal from a summary conviction for violation of the ordinance.

1968In Commonwealth v. DeBaldo, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 363 , 82 A. 2d 578 (1951), defendants were held to be barred from attacking the validity of a zoning ordinance on appeal from a summary conviction for violation of the ordinance.

1959Our most recent case of this type is Commonwealth v. Hollinger, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 180 , 84 A. 2d 794 , which involved an appeal from a summary conviction for violation of a regulation of the Milk Control Commission.

1959Our most recent case of this type is Commonwealth v. Hollinger, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 180 , 84 A. 2d 794 , which involved an appeal from a summary conviction for violation of a regulation of the Milk Control Commission.

1955It is not inconsistent, on that basis, with such decisions as Commonwealth, Borough of Bellevue, v. Reed, 165 Pa. Superior Ct. 114 , where, on appeal from a summary conviction for violation of a zoning ordinance, the whole tenor of the opinion indicates that a lawful, nonconforming use (which factually therein was not made out) would have been a complete defense even though' raised in such a collateral preceeding.

1954In Commonwealth v. Cannon, 32 Pa. Superior Ct. 78, 81 , Judge Orlady says: “The written complaint on which this proceeding is founded is the substratum of the magistrate’s jurisdiction, and it is necessary in order to sustain his judgment that the complete statement of the offense charged is set out therein.” Again, in Commonwealth v. Gelbert, 170 Pa. 426 , in a summary conviction for the violation of the Sunday Law of April 22, 1794, the court ruled that the complaint is the foundation of the proceedings before a magistrate and that it must distinctly set forth the alleged offense in order to

1954In Commonwealth v. Cannon, 32 Pa. Superior Ct. 78, 81 , Judge Orlady says: “The written complaint on which this proceeding is founded is the substratum of the magistrate’s jurisdiction, and it is necessary in order to sustain his judgment that the complete statement of the offense charged is set out therein.” Again, in Commonwealth v. Gelbert, 170 Pa. 426 , in a summary conviction for the violation of the Sunday Law of April 22, 1794, the court ruled that the complaint is the foundation of the proceedings before a magistrate and that it must distinctly set forth the alleged offense in order to

1926“A special allowance from the Court of Common Pleas must be had for a writ of certiorari to a justice of the peace or alderman in a summary conviction for a violation of the Sunday law:” Com. v. Antone, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 412 .

1908In Comth. v. Gipner, 118 Pa. 379 , in a summary conviction for a violation of the Sunday laws, where the fine and costs had been voluntarily paid by the defendant, it was'said by Mr. Justice Williams: "The fact that the evidence was sent up by the magistrate did not justify the Common Pleas in an attempt at a retrial of the case upon the merits, nor make it any part of the record.